Gleaner

Serving Toronto's most liveable community with the Annex Gleaner

← →

EDITORIAL:Fact over fiction: Ford’s Bill 212 fails on its merits (Aug. 2025)

September 29th, 2025 · No Comments

In a scathing ruling, an Ontario court has found that sections of the provincial government’s Bill 212, the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by infringing on cyclists’ rights to life and security of person. The sections of Bill 212 empowering the province to rip out bike lanes on Yonge Street, University Avenue, and Bloor Street are now nullified under Section 7 of the Charter. The Ford government is appealing the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In his decision Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas found that “the government has led no evidence to rebut the applicants’ compelling position, supported by evidence, that removing the protected bike lanes will cause cyclists to ride in more dangerous mixed traffic…and that cyclists will be injured, and worse, if the protected target bike lanes are removed.” The government of course knows this, which is why it included in the legislation a perverse clause that prohibits anyone or anyone’s family from suing the government for damages should they be injured or killed because of the bike lane removal. That clause which self-indemnifies the province showed that the Ford government knows that it is a demonstrable, probable fact that removing bike lanes will sentence a certain number of citizens to death or serious injury. Does the government have the right to kill you? The court says it absolutely does not.

The government faces a hard pedal at appeal. It fully and completely lost the case. In discovery proceedings, the province had to reveal its own expert advice that stated that bike lane removal would not reduce congestion, would increase collisions between all road users, and would likely lead to injuries and deaths of cyclists. That makes Ford look like someone guilty of willful neglect. Schabas did not go that far but he did call Bill 212 “arbitrary” which takes the government onto thin ice constitutionally. Ford would simply say it’s all about “common sense.” For him, it’s about ideology, not about smart transportation planning. No amount of fact will dissuade him from the view that we could each hop in our individual cars and head down to the Rogers Centre for a ball game with ease if it were not for those pesky bike lanes. 

Innumerable studies have found that safe bike infrastructure contributes not only to the safety of all road users, but it also contributes to the local economy. The Bloor Annex BIA reported an increase in sales, verified by Moneris Sales Terminal data, when it participated in a pilot bike lane project for Bloor Street. The BIA endorsed making those lanes permanent, and they are now part of a complete streetscape. 

A leaked internal report from the provincial government acknowledges that “most research…suggests reducing road capacity by introducing bike lanes can encourage biking [no kidding?] and discourage car use, alleviating congestion.”

In their piece in The Globe and Mail last fall when Bill 212 was first introduced, University of Toronto academics Sarah Elton and Madeline Bonsma-Fisher rejected the notion that bike lanes are the latest salvo in the “war on the car.” Rather, they argued, “this bill is a war on the facts— on evidence and data—that we are witnessing spread across the continent. It’s an example of post-truth politics in Canada.” This is not just an issue south of the border; decision-making based on feelings versus facts knows no border.

The right to life and liberty in Section 7 of the Charter is not absolute. Issues of “fundamental justice” exception or “reasonable limits” under Charter 1 can thwart or diminish a person’s Section 7 rights. Evidence at trial showed the government was advised by numerous experts of two things: the measure would lead to more deaths, and the move would do nothing to reduce congestion and would likely have the opposite effect. There was no balance of rights for the courts to arbitrate. 

This bid to rip out bike lanes is not only arbitrary in a legal sense; it is frivolous and mean- spirited. The Court of Appeal would be right to dismiss Ford’s bid to overturn the decision.

READ MORE EDITORIALS:

Tags: Annex · Editorial · Opinion