A big day in the ongoing bike lane saga goes down in Toronto. A coalition of local cyclists is back before Ontario’s top court as the province presses ahead with its bid to overturn a ruling that halted the removal of protected bike lanes on some of the city’s busiest streets.
The appeal
The case, set to be heard Wednesday by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, stems from a successful legal challenge launched by riders that included a bike courier and a university student. They argued the province’s plan to eliminate sections of separated cycling infrastructure would endanger cyclists without delivering the promised benefit of easing traffic congestion.
In the summer of 2025, Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas agreed. In his decision, he concluded the government moved forward despite advice from its own staff and outside experts suggesting the plan would not meaningfully reduce gridlock and could even worsen it. The judge found evidence that removing or downgrading protected lanes would likely result in more collisions, injuries and deaths.
He also pointed to the province’s decision to add an immunity clause to the legislation — shielding itself from liability — as an acknowledgment of that danger.
The bill and ongoing bike lanes battle
Premier Doug Ford’s government passed legislation in 2024 targeting roughly 19 km of protected bike lanes along Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue. The bill, called, “Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act” was the beginning of a ongoing battle between cycling advocacy groups and the government.
A Toronto city report released the same year cited research suggesting cyclists face nearly nine times the risk of injury on major streets without protected infrastructure compared with separated lanes. Over the past decade, 28 cyclists have been killed and hundreds seriously hurt in the city, with most collisions occurring where bike lanes were absent.
Evidence and data check out
During the trial, the province amended its law to say lanes would be “reconfigured” rather than removed. Schabas rejected the distinction, calling it an attempt to sidestep the court’s scrutiny.
“The evidence is clear that restoring a lane of motor vehicle traffic will create greater risk to cyclists and to other users of the roads,” Schabas wrote.
In its appeal, Ontario argues the judge wrongly applied Charter protections, saying the right to life, liberty and security was never meant to put safety-related…
Click Here to Read the Full Original Article at Canadian Cycling Magazine…